2016 Tacoma Dyno Torque HP Crve

That's a 1GR

 

Yes.

 

Since we're on the engine I want to ask, and I know this is a little off topic but I have not found answer. The 2016 is more efficient by a couple mpg right? If this transmission is so much more efficient, the truck is the most streamlined in the segment, and the new engine has more technology and less displacement... shouldn't we see a lot more than +2 or +3 mpg? I feel like an updated transmission and top level aerodynamics alone would have given the 1gr that much of a bump and its just vvti. If it was dual vvti like the 4runner wouldn't it be even more efficient? Someone please explain. This engine didnt seem to do very much for mpg but it did maintain similar power.Thanks

Edit: furthermore, the truck dropped 300 lbs. Not getting it

 

Aerodynamics of a brick that the taco has makes it real hard to get mpgs up.

 

I thought I addressed that?

 

Lol.... yeah aeros on the new tacoma are still a brick even on the 3rd gen, no way around that.... yeah they did some things to help, but its a minimal difference.

 

So is this the 3.5 in the gen 3 Taco or another engine?

 

No, it is the 3.5 in a Lexus which is basically the same engine except it does not have VVT-iW which should not affect max torque/power. I think it is reasonable to assume that the low-end torque would be improved in the Tacoma (peak torque is still less). Surely the Tacoma uses a different intake tuned for low-end?

 

I sure didn't feel much torque until I revved the 3.5 liter well into the 3,000's. I need to test drive another one again and get a better feel for it.

 

Personally, I don't care what it is below ~1500 rpm. I found something that says the 2GR-FSE (Lexus) has 90% torque over a range of ~4400 rpm. 2GR-FKS has 90% just a little beyond 6000. A proportional range would be about 4000 rpm (due to lower rev limit). So, 90% (238 lb/ft) at ~2000 rpm? Maybe lower depending on the tune? Problem is, as many have said, it just doesn't feel that way.

If GM 3.6 can have low end torque why can't Toyota 3.5? (Can't find Colorado LFX tune.)

Edit: Found the Colorado tune; but, the peak HP rpm doesn't match up?

 

^ gearing differences impacting low end torque feel?

 

^ 3rd gen has lower gearing than 2nd gen and almost exactly same as GM.

 

The typical car engine has been so thoroughly advanced, its very hard to find that extra MPG.

And just for a frame of reference, if you make a 10-15% increase in MPG's, that's still only a 2-3mpg's increase.

The 2GR-FSE gets close to 260 ft/lbs at 2k rpms according to Toyota's graph so not sure what you are complaining about. Also, take these graphs with a large grain of salt. They are just a graphical representation.

 

I'd put it at about 245@2000 and dropping precipitously to maybe 160@1000. GM's LFX looks to be ~245 down to 1000 if you believe the graphs. As I said I don't care what happens below 1500; but what I do care about is that the gen 3 doesn't seem to get off the line any faster with it's better gearing than my 14 year old no-tech gen 1 AND that it showed worse mileage at 65 MPH.

Regardless, I am getting a gen 3 soon. I (and many others) am just trying to understand this apparent paradox.

 

No you're correct about the torque.

 

They added a taller 6th gear to offset the lower rear end gearing

 

^Not exactly. Comparing 2nd and 3rd gen TRDOR Autos, rear, and tires every 3rd gen gear is lower (except 6th):

1st is 7.0% lower
2nd is 7.2% lower
3rd is 10.7% lower
4th is 4.9% lower
5th is 0.8% lower
6th is 18% higher than 2nd gen 5th.

Edit: Compared to 1st gen, 1st is 19% lower.

 

Exactly

 

What do you mean exactly? 5th is the same. 6th is not like 5th. 6th is 6th because it's 6th not 5th, of course it's taller than 5th.

 

That seems like too obvious a statement.

They made 5th taller because of the rear end. They made 6th taller because of the EPA.